Legal Opinion

Beery v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided October 1, 2003No. Nos. 3:00 CV 327, 3:02 CV 311PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

OVINGTON, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jack Beery alleges that Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. infringed and/or *600willfully infringed his patent for a “Television Receiver Having Memory Control For Tune-By-Label Feature,” United States Patent Reissue No. 35, 952 (hereinafter “the ’952 patent”). The (Doc. # 1 at 2). Thomson asserts that its products do not infringe the ’952 patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and that the ’952 patent is invalid under the doctrines of anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness. (Doc. #7).

This ease,…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Trammel v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Herbert v. LandoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Terry v. BaconCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2011
  2. Rubel v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2008
  3. Quiksilver, Inc. v. Kymsta Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2007
  4. United States v. Optrex America, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API